This discussion should really be about underlying theories of justice, because different notions there are what drives this particular disagreement about particular tax brackets.
Progressive taxation is a combination of economic logic, risk aversion, tax value and economic justice. I don't think you can boil the idea of progressive taxation into "well, this is solely about X" when the concept is based on a mishmash of all sorts of ideologies and economic concepts.
Underlying theories of justice is certainly part of it, just not the only part.
Practically it doesn't work any other way either
As I said before a truly flat tax would be laughably low or cripplingly high. All notions of social justice or fairness aside it simply doesn't fucking work.
Income taxes are a user fee for society. If you use society more than other people (i.e. you see more benefit out of it), then you pay a higher fee. This is perfectly reasonable. Anytime a rich person wants to, they can simply elect to stop paying their taxes by withdrawing from society. Shelters and things will even provide them with food, drink, and a roof over their head. Hell, welfare will even provide for them once they run out of money. They're welcome to withdraw any time they'd like.
This discussion should really be about underlying theories of justice, because different notions there are what drives this particular disagreement about particular tax brackets.
Progressive taxation is a combination of economic logic, risk aversion, tax value and economic justice. I don't think you can boil the idea of progressive taxation into "well, this is solely about X" when the concept is based on a mishmash of all sorts of ideologies and economic concepts.
Underlying theories of justice is certainly part of it, just not the only part.
Practically it doesn't work any other way either
As I said before a truly flat tax would be laughably low or cripplingly high. All notions of social justice or fairness aside it simply doesn't fucking work.
Well, more than just fairness is at play as well. Economically you can only tax lower and middle income persons so much before you reach a functional breaking point. If we taxed billionaires at a 90% tax rate, billionaires would still survive and function in society. If we taxed people making less than $20k a year at a 90% tax rate, they'd be homeless in a month.
Then you have our standard economic approach to risk aversion, which I suppose you could argue is covered in a sense of fairness but I think that misses some of the ideas behind how our culture mitigates economic risk.
So the ethics and justice and fairness angle is certainly a big part of it, but still only a part of it.
*edit* I misread your post and basically restated your point for you
This discussion should really be about underlying theories of justice, because different notions there are what drives this particular disagreement about particular tax brackets.
Progressive taxation is a combination of economic logic, risk aversion, tax value and economic justice. I don't think you can boil the idea of progressive taxation into "well, this is solely about X" when the concept is based on a mishmash of all sorts of ideologies and economic concepts.
Underlying theories of justice is certainly part of it, just not the only part.
Practically it doesn't work any other way either
As I said before a truly flat tax would be laughably low or cripplingly high. All notions of social justice or fairness aside it simply doesn't fucking work.
I can live with a progressive tax code. My complaint is the manner in which politically connected groups can get the tax code changed in terms of deductions and the like in order to help their respective industries. So, mortgage interest is deductible, but rent isn't. Interest on government bonds is tax free, but interest on corporate bonds isn't. And so on.
The system seems to be set up to help those with political connections, and screws the average wage slave.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Income taxes are a user fee for society. If you use society more than other people (i.e. you see more benefit out of it), then you pay a higher fee. This is perfectly reasonable. Anytime a rich person wants to, they can simply elect to stop paying their taxes by withdrawing from society. Shelters and things will even provide them with food, drink, and a roof over their head. Hell, welfare will even provide for them once they run out of money. They're welcome to withdraw any time they'd like.
Can you expound on this? I'm assuming you subscribe to wwtMask's notion that rich people receive the benefits of taxation more than the poor. I disagree with that, but I don't know enough facts to not be convinced otherwise.
How do the rich use society more than the poor and middle classes?
mrdobalina: I've done more to prove my point than you have. A tax break is a gift from the government. A gift is a handout, ergo a tax break is a handout.
In order to come to that conclusion though, you have to operate from the assumption that it's not the citizen's money in the first place, but that the government holds exclusive domain on it.
You have to operate from that position because we do not have a flat tax, and there is no universal understanding or agreement within society of the "fee" for use. Since government sets compulsory rates for taxation, granting it the position of benevolence for lowing the already arbitrary fee is, frankly, irrational.
How do the rich use society more than the poor and middle classes?
I have a tough time grasping this concept, too. It's not like there's a limited pool of societal goo that people consume. The fact that someone does very well in life doesn't cost anyone else anything, generally.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
how is a tax cut a hand out, if you steal $20 from me, and give me back 10 you think I should be grateful like you just did sumthing for me...?
Stealing isn't exactly the right analogy.
hey dobalina, sometimes we CAN agree on things!
However, I too disagree with you when you say a tax cut is not a handout.
Think of it in terms of rent, as someone mentioned.
If your rent is 100 dollars, but your landlord is agreeing to pay $40 dollars of it for you that is a handout (this is an analogy to welfare)
If your rent is 100 dollars, but your landlord tells you that now your rent is $60 dollars, due to him lowering the rent because you are SUCH a good tenant this is a handout (analogy to tax cuts)
they are functionally the same, as you are personally paying 60$ for rent.
Now to apply this to what ACTUALLY goes on-
You cannot have both systems. You cannot turn to people and give them 40$ to pay their rent AND also lower rent for other people. You would run out. Therefore you choose to either give people "free money" (welfare) OR lower the rent (tax cuts). We are always arguing about which is the better idea, and at which economic bracket each can be applied.
But functionally they are the same thing. A tax cut is the same thing as a handout because of Machiavellian logic. Meaning, the intermediary is different but the end result is the same: e.g. some people have more money at the end of the day. Whether it is because they were GIVEN money or whether they were simply TAXED less is irrelevant as they are still ending up with more financial wealth at the end of the day.
This discussion should really be about underlying theories of justice, because different notions there are what drives this particular disagreement about particular tax brackets.
Progressive taxation is a combination of economic logic, risk aversion, tax value and economic justice. I don't think you can boil the idea of progressive taxation into "well, this is solely about X" when the concept is based on a mishmash of all sorts of ideologies and economic concepts.
Underlying theories of justice is certainly part of it, just not the only part.
Practically it doesn't work any other way either
As I said before a truly flat tax would be laughably low or cripplingly high. All notions of social justice or fairness aside it simply doesn't fucking work.
I can live with a progressive tax code. My complaint is the manner in which politically connected groups can get the tax code changed in terms of deductions and the like in order to help their respective industries. So, mortgage interest is deductible, but rent isn't. Interest on government bonds is tax free, but interest on corporate bonds isn't. And so on.
The system seems to be set up to help those with political connections, and screws the average wage slave.
As I understand Mortgage Interest is deductible because our government decided it was better for the country if people owned their own homes instead of just renting from the rich, so they created an incentive for purchasing a house.
mrdobalina: I've done more to prove my point than you have. A tax break is a gift from the government. A gift is a handout, ergo a tax break is a handout.
In order to come to that conclusion though, you have to operate from the assumption that it's not the citizen's money in the first place, but that the government holds exclusive domain on it.
You have to operate from that position because we do not have a flat tax, and there is no universal understanding or agreement within society of the "fee" for use. Since government sets compulsory rates for taxation, granting it the position of benevolence for lowing the already arbitrary fee is, frankly, irrational.
Dobalina where do you think money comes from?
Like, seriously? Money is a function of government, it is a measure of work. You can argue up and down about how much work is worth, but the thing is you are arguing how much it is worth in government issued dollars.
Money has NO VALUE without a government, so to claim that it is "yours" is silly. Money simply exists as a measure to allow for an economy of services without forcing everyone to produce a good in order to receive other goods or services.
A hand out is something that is freely given: food stamps, subsidies, earned income tax credit.
A tax cut can't meet that definition, since a tax cut is specifically just not taking. The person receiving the tax cut isn't given anything, they just to keep more of the money they earn.
mrdobalina: I've done more to prove my point than you have. A tax break is a gift from the government. A gift is a handout, ergo a tax break is a handout.
In order to come to that conclusion though, you have to operate from the assumption that it's not the citizen's money in the first place, but that the government holds exclusive domain on it.
You have to operate from that position because we do not have a flat tax, and there is no universal understanding or agreement within society of the "fee" for use. Since government sets compulsory rates for taxation, granting it the position of benevolence for lowing the already arbitrary fee is, frankly, irrational.
The law says you have to pay a certain percentage of your income in taxes. That sounds like exclusive government domain, unless you think that you can somehow not pay all of your taxes.
Income taxes are a user fee for society. If you use society more than other people (i.e. you see more benefit out of it), then you pay a higher fee. This is perfectly reasonable. Anytime a rich person wants to, they can simply elect to stop paying their taxes by withdrawing from society. Shelters and things will even provide them with food, drink, and a roof over their head. Hell, welfare will even provide for them once they run out of money. They're welcome to withdraw any time they'd like.
Can you expound on this? I'm assuming you subscribe to wwtMask's notion that rich people receive the benefits of taxation more than the poor. I disagree with that, but I don't know enough facts to not be convinced otherwise.
How do the rich use society more than the poor and middle classes?
The New York Stock Exchange is a function of society. It is able to exist because of a military that protects it. The businesses that are traded on it benefit tremendously from a work force that is kept healthy through safe food, water, and medicine. They also benefit from a public education system that does most of the training of their workforce. Who benefits more from the military: the guy with $1000 in assets to protect from the Russkies, or the guy with $100 million in assets to protect, with holdings in multiple countries with a U.S. military presence? Who benefits more from a police department and fire department: the guy renting a tiny apartment with an old black-and-white television and Craigslist furniture, or the guy living in a mansion furnished by a designer, whose alarm goes off every other night because of a squirrel living in section B-14 of his estate grounds? And who benefits more from public education: the guy who makes an extra $15,000 a year because he has a high school diploma, or the guy who makes an extra $50,000,000 a year because he has an educated workforce that his business and the businesses he invests in can draw from, who they don't have to teach to read, write, or do basic math?
A hand out is something that is freely given: food stamps, subsidies, earned income tax credit.
A tax cut can't meet that definition, since a tax cut is specifically just not taking. The person receiving the tax cut isn't given anything, they just to keep more of the money they earn.
I fucking just said this. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day with either idea you end up at the same place. Ergo there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between the two.
And besides, if a tax cut is freely given, does that not also make it a handout?
If I just GAVE you a tax cut for free, then I have HANDED OUT a tax cut to you.
As I understand Mortgage Interest is deductible because our government decided it was better for the country if people owned their own homes instead of just renting from the rich, so they created an incentive for purchasing a house.
A more cynical person would say that the mortgage interest deduction exists, at least in part, because the banking and homebuilding industries lobbied very hard to get this put into the tax code, as it helps their business.
The increased drive for homeownership is at least partly responsible for our current economic mess.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
A hand out is something that is freely given: food stamps, subsidies, earned income tax credit.
A tax cut can't meet that definition, since a tax cut is specifically just not taking. The person receiving the tax cut isn't given anything, they just to keep more of the money they earn.
This is stupid hair-splitting. By this definition, a tax rebate is a handout, but a tax break isn't, even though the only difference between them is at what point in the taxation process they are applied.
A hand out is something that is freely given: food stamps, subsidies, earned income tax credit.
A tax cut can't meet that definition, since a tax cut is specifically just not taking. The person receiving the tax cut isn't given anything, they just to keep more of the money they earn.
I fucking just said this. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day with either idea you end up at the same place. Ergo there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between the two.
And besides, if a tax cut is freely given, does that not also make it a handout?
If I just GAVE you a tax cut for free, then I have HANDED OUT a tax cut to you.
Because you are not handing me a tangible object, in fact you aren't handing me anything - you just aren't taking as much.
Financial success or failure is not directly due to the actions of the government.
The ability to capitalize on that success or failure can be due to the protections the government provides.
What's the entrepreneur class in Somalia or Afghanistan look like? Last I checked, Bill Gates doesn't have to bankroll his own private army to defend his wealth.
Other than a handful of radical libertarians and/or anarchists, nobody is calling for the abolition of government. There are basic governmental functions, such as roads and other infrastructure, law enforcement, courts and the military that almost no one objects to.
The area of contention, it seems, involve social services and welfare and the use of tax dollars for the benefit of the politically connected (by way of such things as farm subsidies and the like).
The classical conservative view is that government exists to protect the rights of the citizenry. Anything beyond that is not a proper role of government and should not be paid for with tax dollars.
but the counter argument is comparing the relative levels of tax dollars going into each program (e.g. infrastructure vs. medicaid. or military vs. welfare)
We actually spend more on medicare/medicaide than we do on military defense.
Really? I would like to see statistics on that. Are you including military contractors and military research funding in the equation, and not just military presence?
So they do the work so they deserve to pay less taxes on it?
I'm not arguing here against a progressive tax system on the whole, but to equate a tax cut to a handout presupposes government ownership of private capital.
And your way of saying it sounds like the old "all taxes are theft" supposition.
That interpretation says more about your position than mine.
Tax cuts are not handouts, that's all I'm saying.
The problem is that you're wrong.
how is a tax cut a hand out, if you steal $20 from me, and give me back 10 you think I should be grateful like you just did sumthing for me...?
If I'm your landlord who keeps your office standing for the cost of 10 dollars a month yes you fucking damn well should be grateful.
that is scary thinking, I should remind you we live in a democracy where the government is SUPPOSED to be the servant of the people not the master. So I think your metaphor would be better if we lived in a totalitarian state or a monarchy.
A democracy, just like any other form of government, needs money to function. Taxes are not a characteristic of unjust systems of government, they are a characteristic of systems of government.Edit: I usually tend to disagree with you Mrdobalina, but I'm glad nobody has managed to run you away from this forum. It feels a lot like an echo chamber at times.
Limed for truth.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
A hand out is something that is freely given: food stamps, subsidies, earned income tax credit.
A tax cut can't meet that definition, since a tax cut is specifically just not taking. The person receiving the tax cut isn't given anything, they just to keep more of the money they earn.
I fucking just said this. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day with either idea you end up at the same place. Ergo there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between the two.
And besides, if a tax cut is freely given, does that not also make it a handout?
If I just GAVE you a tax cut for free, then I have HANDED OUT a tax cut to you.
Because you are not handing me a tangible object, in fact you aren't handing me anything - you just aren't taking as much.
Ironically, as we are arguing about money, which is a product of a service economy which operates on intangible goods, you are unable to see the duality present in the argument.
We actually spend more on medicare/medicaide than we do on military defense.
Really? I would like to see statistics on that. Are you including military contractors and military research funding in the equation, and not just military presence?
Fiscal Year 2008:
Note: I think that doesn't include Iraq/Afghanistan as they were still off budget.
EDIT: It does not.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
We actually spend more on medicare/medicaide than we do on military defense.
Really? I would like to see statistics on that. Are you including military contractors and military research funding in the equation, and not just military presence?
Fiscal Year 2008:
Interesting. What are discretionary and mandatory spending? I.e. what is that money? what do those numbers mean?
A hand out is something that is freely given: food stamps, subsidies, earned income tax credit.
A tax cut can't meet that definition, since a tax cut is specifically just not taking. The person receiving the tax cut isn't given anything, they just to keep more of the money they earn.
I fucking just said this. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day with either idea you end up at the same place. Ergo there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between the two.
And besides, if a tax cut is freely given, does that not also make it a handout?
If I just GAVE you a tax cut for free, then I have HANDED OUT a tax cut to you.
it's impossible to say you're handing something when you taking more of it then you're giving. I have 4 quarters in my hand. You take 3. You did not give me a 1 quarter hand out.
NotYou on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
Aren't Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, uh, mandatory?
I guess it does say "other mandatory" but why not split the chart up some more, and have color graphs for the thinner slices.
A hand out is something that is freely given: food stamps, subsidies, earned income tax credit.
A tax cut can't meet that definition, since a tax cut is specifically just not taking. The person receiving the tax cut isn't given anything, they just to keep more of the money they earn.
I fucking just said this. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day with either idea you end up at the same place. Ergo there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between the two.
And besides, if a tax cut is freely given, does that not also make it a handout?
If I just GAVE you a tax cut for free, then I have HANDED OUT a tax cut to you.
it's impossible to say you're handing something when you taking more of it then you're giving. I have 4 quarters in my hand. You take 3. You did not give me a 1 quarter hand out.
I created the four quarters you are holding in your hand, and enforce the laws that keep them with you, instead of the biggest guy in the room who feels like taking them.
A hand out is something that is freely given: food stamps, subsidies, earned income tax credit.
A tax cut can't meet that definition, since a tax cut is specifically just not taking. The person receiving the tax cut isn't given anything, they just to keep more of the money they earn.
I fucking just said this. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day with either idea you end up at the same place. Ergo there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between the two.
And besides, if a tax cut is freely given, does that not also make it a handout?
If I just GAVE you a tax cut for free, then I have HANDED OUT a tax cut to you.
it's impossible to say you're handing something when you taking more of it then you're giving. I have 4 quarters in my hand. You take 3. You did not give me a 1 quarter hand out.
but the thing is the end result is the same as if someone had two quarters and then I gave them one
they now have 3 quarters
it doesn't matter beyond that because when you get down to it people really just don't like giving people quarters
A hand out is something that is freely given: food stamps, subsidies, earned income tax credit.
A tax cut can't meet that definition, since a tax cut is specifically just not taking. The person receiving the tax cut isn't given anything, they just to keep more of the money they earn.
I fucking just said this. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day with either idea you end up at the same place. Ergo there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between the two.
And besides, if a tax cut is freely given, does that not also make it a handout?
If I just GAVE you a tax cut for free, then I have HANDED OUT a tax cut to you.
it's impossible to say you're handing something when you taking more of it then you're giving. I have 4 quarters in my hand. You take 3. You did not give me a 1 quarter hand out.
Again, you're looking at it in the wrong way. If I set the price for a soda as $1, but then I only charge you $0.75, is that not giving you extra money in your pocket? Hell, that's the way tax cuts are sold to the public by proponents of tax cuts!
EDIT: In other words, you are reaping 33% more economic benefit from the deal than you otherwise would, and you did nothing to earn that extra benefit.
A hand out is something that is freely given: food stamps, subsidies, earned income tax credit.
A tax cut can't meet that definition, since a tax cut is specifically just not taking. The person receiving the tax cut isn't given anything, they just to keep more of the money they earn.
I fucking just said this. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day with either idea you end up at the same place. Ergo there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between the two.
And besides, if a tax cut is freely given, does that not also make it a handout?
If I just GAVE you a tax cut for free, then I have HANDED OUT a tax cut to you.
it's impossible to say you're handing something when you taking more of it then you're giving. I have 4 quarters in my hand. You take 3. You did not give me a 1 quarter hand out.
I created the four quarters you are holding in your hand, and enforce the laws that keep them with you, instead of the biggest guy in the room who feels like taking them.
Really? I would like to see statistics on that. Are you including military contractors and military research funding in the equation, and not just military presence?
A hand out is something that is freely given: food stamps, subsidies, earned income tax credit.
A tax cut can't meet that definition, since a tax cut is specifically just not taking. The person receiving the tax cut isn't given anything, they just to keep more of the money they earn.
I fucking just said this. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day with either idea you end up at the same place. Ergo there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between the two.
And besides, if a tax cut is freely given, does that not also make it a handout?
If I just GAVE you a tax cut for free, then I have HANDED OUT a tax cut to you.
it's impossible to say you're handing something when you taking more of it then you're giving. I have 4 quarters in my hand. You take 3. You did not give me a 1 quarter hand out.
Again, you're looking at it in the wrong way. If I set the price for a soda as $1, but then I only charge you $0.75, is that not giving you extra money in your pocket? Hell, that's the way tax cuts are sold to the public by proponents of tax cuts!
No its not, because by definition, you did not GIVE anything. You just did not take as much.
A hand out is something that is freely given: food stamps, subsidies, earned income tax credit.
A tax cut can't meet that definition, since a tax cut is specifically just not taking. The person receiving the tax cut isn't given anything, they just to keep more of the money they earn.
I fucking just said this. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day with either idea you end up at the same place. Ergo there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between the two.
And besides, if a tax cut is freely given, does that not also make it a handout?
If I just GAVE you a tax cut for free, then I have HANDED OUT a tax cut to you.
it's impossible to say you're handing something when you taking more of it then you're giving. I have 4 quarters in my hand. You take 3. You did not give me a 1 quarter hand out.
Again, you're looking at it in the wrong way. If I set the price for a soda as $1, but then I only charge you $0.75, is that not giving you extra money in your pocket? Hell, that's the way tax cuts are sold to the public by proponents of tax cuts!
No its not, because by definition, you did not GIVE anything. You just did not take as much.
Yes I did, I gave you a discount, and by doing so gave you greater benefit than you would've received if you'd paid the full price.
Really? I would like to see statistics on that. Are you including military contractors and military research funding in the equation, and not just military presence?
Quarters, rent, etc, etc -- it all boils down to who owns the money in the first place and has an inherent right to its control. Though the government and its various protections may support, encourage and allow the free trade of monies, it does not create the value a dollar represents. A person does though the buying and selling of labor and goods.
The government can pass a law saying: The cost of use of society this year is 31% for incomes between x and y.
If later they pass a law saying: This year the cost of use of society is 30% for the same x and y incomes, it does not mean they GAVE you the money. It simply means they adjusted the costs and changed the price tag.
When Walmart "rolls back" their prices it has no equivalence to them handing out free money.
No its not, because by definition, you did not GIVE anything. You just did not take as much.
You don't just magically have four quarters in your hand.
You only have those four quarters in the first place because of the actions and existence of the U.S. government, which minted them, enforces the laws that protects them from being stolen, created the highway, utility and information infrastructure that makes the business that paid you the quarters possible to be in existence.
A hand out is something that is freely given: food stamps, subsidies, earned income tax credit.
A tax cut can't meet that definition, since a tax cut is specifically just not taking. The person receiving the tax cut isn't given anything, they just to keep more of the money they earn.
I fucking just said this. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day with either idea you end up at the same place. Ergo there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between the two.
And besides, if a tax cut is freely given, does that not also make it a handout?
If I just GAVE you a tax cut for free, then I have HANDED OUT a tax cut to you.
Because you are not handing me a tangible object, in fact you aren't handing me anything - you just aren't taking as much.
Ironically, as we are arguing about money, which is a product of a service economy which operates on intangible goods, you are unable to see the duality present in the argument.
No, i can see it, we just have agreed as a society that money backed by the government is the method in which we trade. And $ is the abstract form in which we measure work, goods and services.
You are making the argument that any wealth that is money is not that person's at all and all $ amounts are owned by the respective government.
Quarters, rent, etc, etc -- it all boils down to who owns the money in the first place and has an inherent right to its control. Though the government and its various protections may support, encourage and allow the free trade of monies, it does not create the value a dollar represents. A person does though the buying and selling of labor and goods.
The government can pass a law saying: The cost of use of society this year is 31% for incomes between x and y.
If later they pass a law saying: This year the cost of use of society is 30% for the same x and y incomes, it does not mean they GAVE you the money. It simply means they adjusted the costs and changed the price tag.
When Walmart "rolls back" their prices it has no equivalence to them handing out free money.
Dude the government doesn't just support and encourage monies, it CREATES THEM.
Also- are you missing the point where the end result is still the same, and thus arguing against one in favor of the other is stupid because they both arrive at the same place?
Whether a tax break is the government giving you money or taking less money is the absolute dumbest semantic argument I've seen on the forum in..... well, hours. Maybe even days.
Posts
Practically it doesn't work any other way either
As I said before a truly flat tax would be laughably low or cripplingly high. All notions of social justice or fairness aside it simply doesn't fucking work.
Well, more than just fairness is at play as well. Economically you can only tax lower and middle income persons so much before you reach a functional breaking point. If we taxed billionaires at a 90% tax rate, billionaires would still survive and function in society. If we taxed people making less than $20k a year at a 90% tax rate, they'd be homeless in a month.
Then you have our standard economic approach to risk aversion, which I suppose you could argue is covered in a sense of fairness but I think that misses some of the ideas behind how our culture mitigates economic risk.
So the ethics and justice and fairness angle is certainly a big part of it, but still only a part of it.
*edit* I misread your post and basically restated your point for you
The system seems to be set up to help those with political connections, and screws the average wage slave.
Rigorous Scholarship
Can you expound on this? I'm assuming you subscribe to wwtMask's notion that rich people receive the benefits of taxation more than the poor. I disagree with that, but I don't know enough facts to not be convinced otherwise.
How do the rich use society more than the poor and middle classes?
In order to come to that conclusion though, you have to operate from the assumption that it's not the citizen's money in the first place, but that the government holds exclusive domain on it.
You have to operate from that position because we do not have a flat tax, and there is no universal understanding or agreement within society of the "fee" for use. Since government sets compulsory rates for taxation, granting it the position of benevolence for lowing the already arbitrary fee is, frankly, irrational.
Rigorous Scholarship
hey dobalina, sometimes we CAN agree on things!
However, I too disagree with you when you say a tax cut is not a handout.
Think of it in terms of rent, as someone mentioned.
If your rent is 100 dollars, but your landlord is agreeing to pay $40 dollars of it for you that is a handout (this is an analogy to welfare)
If your rent is 100 dollars, but your landlord tells you that now your rent is $60 dollars, due to him lowering the rent because you are SUCH a good tenant this is a handout (analogy to tax cuts)
they are functionally the same, as you are personally paying 60$ for rent.
Now to apply this to what ACTUALLY goes on-
You cannot have both systems. You cannot turn to people and give them 40$ to pay their rent AND also lower rent for other people. You would run out. Therefore you choose to either give people "free money" (welfare) OR lower the rent (tax cuts). We are always arguing about which is the better idea, and at which economic bracket each can be applied.
But functionally they are the same thing. A tax cut is the same thing as a handout because of Machiavellian logic. Meaning, the intermediary is different but the end result is the same: e.g. some people have more money at the end of the day. Whether it is because they were GIVEN money or whether they were simply TAXED less is irrelevant as they are still ending up with more financial wealth at the end of the day.
As I understand Mortgage Interest is deductible because our government decided it was better for the country if people owned their own homes instead of just renting from the rich, so they created an incentive for purchasing a house.
Dobalina where do you think money comes from?
Like, seriously? Money is a function of government, it is a measure of work. You can argue up and down about how much work is worth, but the thing is you are arguing how much it is worth in government issued dollars.
Money has NO VALUE without a government, so to claim that it is "yours" is silly. Money simply exists as a measure to allow for an economy of services without forcing everyone to produce a good in order to receive other goods or services.
A tax cut can't meet that definition, since a tax cut is specifically just not taking. The person receiving the tax cut isn't given anything, they just to keep more of the money they earn.
The law says you have to pay a certain percentage of your income in taxes. That sounds like exclusive government domain, unless you think that you can somehow not pay all of your taxes.
I fucking just said this. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day with either idea you end up at the same place. Ergo there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between the two.
And besides, if a tax cut is freely given, does that not also make it a handout?
If I just GAVE you a tax cut for free, then I have HANDED OUT a tax cut to you.
The increased drive for homeownership is at least partly responsible for our current economic mess.
Rigorous Scholarship
This is stupid hair-splitting. By this definition, a tax rebate is a handout, but a tax break isn't, even though the only difference between them is at what point in the taxation process they are applied.
Because you are not handing me a tangible object, in fact you aren't handing me anything - you just aren't taking as much.
Really? I would like to see statistics on that. Are you including military contractors and military research funding in the equation, and not just military presence?
Limed for truth.
Ironically, as we are arguing about money, which is a product of a service economy which operates on intangible goods, you are unable to see the duality present in the argument.
Fiscal Year 2008:
Note: I think that doesn't include Iraq/Afghanistan as they were still off budget.
EDIT: It does not.
Interesting. What are discretionary and mandatory spending? I.e. what is that money? what do those numbers mean?
it's impossible to say you're handing something when you taking more of it then you're giving. I have 4 quarters in my hand. You take 3. You did not give me a 1 quarter hand out.
I guess it does say "other mandatory" but why not split the chart up some more, and have color graphs for the thinner slices.
nm mandatory spending is stuff thats already in place and needs ot be funded
discretionary is done annually based on appropriations
Discretionary is stuff Congress passes specifically (Transportation, as an example).
but the thing is the end result is the same as if someone had two quarters and then I gave them one
they now have 3 quarters
it doesn't matter beyond that because when you get down to it people really just don't like giving people quarters
Again, you're looking at it in the wrong way. If I set the price for a soda as $1, but then I only charge you $0.75, is that not giving you extra money in your pocket? Hell, that's the way tax cuts are sold to the public by proponents of tax cuts!
EDIT: In other words, you are reaping 33% more economic benefit from the deal than you otherwise would, and you did nothing to earn that extra benefit.
you have a much better response
It's pretty close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
Rigorous Scholarship
No its not, because by definition, you did not GIVE anything. You just did not take as much.
Yes I did, I gave you a discount, and by doing so gave you greater benefit than you would've received if you'd paid the full price.
bit slow homie, but thanks
its like right at ToTP
Quarters, rent, etc, etc -- it all boils down to who owns the money in the first place and has an inherent right to its control. Though the government and its various protections may support, encourage and allow the free trade of monies, it does not create the value a dollar represents. A person does though the buying and selling of labor and goods.
The government can pass a law saying: The cost of use of society this year is 31% for incomes between x and y.
If later they pass a law saying: This year the cost of use of society is 30% for the same x and y incomes, it does not mean they GAVE you the money. It simply means they adjusted the costs and changed the price tag.
When Walmart "rolls back" their prices it has no equivalence to them handing out free money.
You only have those four quarters in the first place because of the actions and existence of the U.S. government, which minted them, enforces the laws that protects them from being stolen, created the highway, utility and information infrastructure that makes the business that paid you the quarters possible to be in existence.
You do not earn money in a vacuum.
No, i can see it, we just have agreed as a society that money backed by the government is the method in which we trade. And $ is the abstract form in which we measure work, goods and services.
You are making the argument that any wealth that is money is not that person's at all and all $ amounts are owned by the respective government.
Dude the government doesn't just support and encourage monies, it CREATES THEM.
Also- are you missing the point where the end result is still the same, and thus arguing against one in favor of the other is stupid because they both arrive at the same place?